The Greed for Speed

In 2009, Warner Bros.' tentpole flick of the Summer will be "Joel Silver's Hand Dangles A Set of Keys" in glorious 35mm.

Very funny, right down to that ultra-meow! comment about Matthew Fox's displaying fewer emotions than his turn as Jack on Lost (still love it, by the way).

The whole thing just goes to show how relevance is fleeting. The Wachowskis could have followed The Matrix with this, instead of the dire-quels, and it wouldn't have been only their die-hard fans who'd herald the film as "a commercial avant-garde experience." How times change.

That's a wonderful review, and between that review and Armond White's, I know which movie I will be avoiding for the next...rest of my life. The Wachowki's proved long ago that they were, at best, one trick ponies. And it wasn't a very good trick at that.

Perhaps I am naive about how the movie business works, but the message I took away from "Speed Racer" is to let the cynics play the game how they want to play it without letting them affect too greatly how you want to play it.

I mean that the Wachowskis, aware of but not directly involved in the ancillary commodification of their movie, seem to be saying "We do what we do, they do what they do. We want to tell silly stories, they want to make boatloads of money. To each his own." Mr. Burns and the Comic Book Guy are not of the same substance, though the latter certainly enjoys what the former peddles.

Not that I'm defending the movie with any personal fervor. I liked its saturated simpleness because I like video games, as low-brow and nestled in nostalgia as all that is. So what? Must I exhibit self-loathing because my inner 12-year-old geek still yips at basic pleasures?

Funny that commode and commodify share the same root.

This is my favorite of your reviews, Jim. Snarky, pungent, a delight, particularly the dissection of the look, the feel, the colors, the overall aesthetic. "Yes" album covers? Snap! The list of all the financial corporate profiteers was a nice touch. And good shout-out to "Tron", a Disney film that managed to inspire Pixar's John Lasseter, which featured a delightful performance from Jeff Bridges: "Greetings, programs", which portrayed a beautiful visual universe, and offered up a dope John Lennon quote in the dialogue, which sums up the film's view of technology as a whole: "Like the man said: No problems, only solutions". Spartacus digital warriors stickin' it to The Man!

I can't help but view it as a good thing that the film is as colorful as it is. Desaturation and "let's make everything blue!" have been vastly overused as cinematic techniques over the past 8 years or so, and the MATRIX films were no exception. I feel compelled to support this picture solely on principle.

Then again, I'm still waiting for mod culture to make a comeback.

The snark-meter is through the roof! Yowser. Wasn't really interested in seeing the movie anyway.

I don't get the Matthew Fox hate. He's a good actor. Not sure what he could have done for this movie, though.

Just sitting through the trailer for Speed Racer nearly gave me seizures.

After reading your review, I'm glad I've opted to see the local premiere of Shotgun Stories this weekend. Glenn Kenny's mostly positive review of SR made me think I might be missing something, but if it's only a CGI version of the nightmare that's been playing in every backwater planetarium in the country for 20+ years, all the hallucinogens in the world couldn't comfortably numb me enough to see that thing.

Here's the funny thing: I agree with your review 150%, Jim, and yet I loved the movie. I had a really great time, and I know that if I were 8 years old my mind would have been completely blown.

Here's the other thing: I think I missed the memo telling me that Pure Spectacle was no longer something to enjoy or admire. (This is not a complaint I direct at you, Jim, just the general sentiment expressed so succinctly by Harry Lime further up.) This must be the same memo that said "anything that you would have enjoyed when you were 8 is automatically beneath notice."

They can't all be period pieces and grim faux-docs on the war in Iraq. And thank God for that.

Oh, and because it might not have been clear...

I wasn't being sarcastic when I said it was a funny thing that I agreed with you completely but still loved the movie. I really DID find it funny, joyously funny. I agreed with your pan and I agreed with the Dallas Morning News' high praise. I thought they were BOTH right.

And then Anthony Lane had to go and call it "pop Fascism," which officially signals the over- and misuse of the word "fascism" in modern discourse.

Some Friday mornings, I genuinely love film criticism...

To those who say the Wachowskis are artists and care not for money, I distinctly recall them signing on to the project because they realized the huge amounts of money to be made in family films.

I feel compelled to defend the movie. I will admit that I was slightly turned off by the visuals in the trailer and the first few minutes of the the movie, but that soon wore off.

The scene of the young Speed in the Crayola inspired animation was touching and the performance by the young Speed and Trixie were very good.

It was also nice to see cynicism get what it deserves. The theme is the same as that of Into The Wild. If you don't accept the help of friends and family then you are going to fail. Living life to the fullest is meaningless without the love of family.

This movie is cotton candy, house of mirrors, roller coaster fun.

When I was a kid, Speed Racer was something to make background noise to cover the slurping of my brothers' and my Pasghettio's. Even at ten I found it to be about the stupidest thing on tv and now they've spent how much on it? It wasn't even my introduction to Japanime or whatever the kids call it. I had already had my fill of "Astroboy" and "Kimba the White Lion". A cast with 10 to 15 great movies among them making with chim-chimps in front of green screens? Maybe Donnie had something to fear from the nihilists after all, or am I out of my element?

But that's just the thing Ken - 8 is not the age at which you currently reside. I *loved* "Home Alone 2" when I was a kid. It is not a good film, nostalgia notwithstanding.

Pure spectacle is fine, and since summer provides nothing but, someone with a disposable income and lowered expectations might find a rewarding experience at the movies.

But personally, I can't get involved in a 30+ minute experience unless my mind is being engaged. So while Tarsem Singh's "The Fall" might look like the Second Coming to people who enjoy pure spectacle, I will remain at home pretentiously watching The Decalogue.

Honestly, I can't see what's wrong with this movie. The review doesn't help, it doesn't pick at any flaws, it just seems to object to the thing on a conceptual level- it's based on an old cartoon, it's got lots of CGI, it has funky editing, it dares to critique corporate corruption of sports while having commercial tie-ins (which isn't really a strong formal point- surely the point is that corporations are a bad thing when they rig competitions and strangle what they possess completely, not merely when they exist.)

Maybe the Wachowskis did pick this project because it seemed more commercial. They still made a sincere film, with care. All that spinning CGI isn't just thrown up at random, there's a story here, with strong themes and a connection to its characters, as cartoonish as they are. It's a well-made spectacle, and there's no shame to be felt for anyone in it.

I've seen cheap and cynical kids' films. I've seen ones that clumsily go through the motions and try nothing. This ain't that kinda movie.

JE: My comment about its incoherence (lots of movement, no momentum) sums up my response. I like what AO Scott wrote: "But 'Speed Racer' is about a boy driving a car, surely a subject that cries out for linearity, simplicity, velocity." If it's not random, it sure feels that way to me. More of a light show than anything else, and I agree there's no shame in enjoying the colors. I, however, didn't so much. See Glenn Kenny's brilliant three-star review at Premiere for an accurate, insightful and more appreciative description of how the movie looks and feels:

http://www.premiere.com/moviereviews/4561/speed-racer.html

I didn't see any problem with its coherence at all. The story makes sense, the characters are simply but strongly defined, I could tell what was happening at any given time. Even the use of color is careful- the emphasis on royal purple at Royalton, the shift to blacks and whites when the bad guy tries to define racing as purely a money game, etc. If it were burdened by subplots I'd see that (and the Wachowskis have absolutely made that error in the past), but this is pretty much a linear three-act movie with a lot of embellishment around the edges.

Jim, always enjoy reading your reviews, but I have to respectfully diverge--and diverge hard--on this one.

I have fallen head over heels in love with this film in the same way that a little boy falls for matchbox cars and GI Joes and legos, toys with which he can apply his boundless and unfettered imagination to.

I have no nostalgic attachment to the cartoon and had no expectations going in, other than it might be a bit 'fun.' Like most people, I was burned pretty badly on the latter Matrix sequels, and wasn't expecting much from the Wachowskis. But from the moment Speed's world spins around him in Crayola drawings the film captured me and refused to let go.

To say it was a religious experience would be an understatement. The simple archetypes recalled the unambiguous fight between good and evil in STAR WARS. The races were jaw droppingly exciting, never more so when Speed would catapult himself over an opponent, but what anchored them for me was an irrepressible need to see him win. Like I desperately needed to see Luke blow up the death star, to strike a blow against evil, I needed to see Speed triumph over the soulless corporations and justify the existence of his dreams. When he is on that final lap in the race, I practically leapt out of my seat and cheered for him.

But the critics, almost universally, hate this film (including you). Have I missed something? Are my critical powers lacking? No, I don't think so. Then why the menace applied to this film? I have to chalk it up to cynicism, that many cannot let go and remember what it was like to be a child with a child's imagination. Granted, perhaps many don't want to return to that place (childhood isn't always a walk in the park), but for me the film conjured up riding a roller coaster for the first time, or engaging in an epic battle with my action figures, or discovering that a movie could take my breath away. The critical response to this movie feels like an old man, getting down on his knees next to a boy racing his toy cars, and telling him that no, his cars can't leap 100 ft. in the air, that they have to drive along the ground and obey all the stop signs.

I thought I would be in a camp of 1 on this, but since writing my review numerous people have come out of the woodwork, graciously thanking me for putting words to what they were feeling. I don't mention this as a backdoor compliment, but to say that for the first time as a film critic, I've experienced the sheer joy of defending a film that no one else loves, and finding that there are other people out there who agree with me. It's enough to make me want to do this for the rest of my life.

I'm sure you've had those moments yourself Jim, going to bat for a movie that is almost universally hated, and finding you're not alone. Now, I hope you don't feel insulted or think that I'm calling you a bitter old codger who's forgotten how to have fun (even though that is kind of what I did). I'm just writing this to ask you to revisit Speed Racer in a year or two with an open mind, to see if there might be a hint of boyish joy there that you missed this time around. I love this film so much that it practically pains me to see it maligned, and saddens me that not everyone had the same experience I did.

Speed Racer is a film that, at the very least, deserves a second chance. Don't write it off as the epic failure everyone else is doing.

Thanks, also, for your great site and fostering a community where guys like me can disagree with guys like you. Gotta love this thing called the internet sometimes. :)

1. There have been no reported seizures during this movie. That's how urban legends get started---someone saying something outlandish and others thinking it true.

2. I went into this movie expecting to see a mediocre movie, but wanting to experience the vivid colors in a theater, not my television screen. What I saw was a very good film overflowing with colors, action, speed. It was an amazing spectacle. Yet many reviewers didn't like it.

3. Too many reviews of it spend 100s of words talking about what clowns the Wachowskis are. Each movie should be judged on its merits, not on what the directors have produced before. Is it that they are oddballs? Is it that Joel Silver was involved and everybody hates Joel Silver?

4. I liked it more than Iron Man. In fact, so much so that I saw it a second time. It was just as good the second time.

5. Finally---a Chim Chim cookie for you, Mr. Emerson, for not liking this movie more. ;)

I also really liked the movie, even though I didn't expect to. I had read a couple of negative reviews beforehand (not this one, thankfully, or I might not have gone) so my expectations weren't high, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. Frankly the writing style of this review really turns me off. It's clear that Jim does "get" this film at all, but I don't think all this snarkiness is warranted. In fact, I can't help but wonder if there isn't some kind of generational disconnect going on here. I'm in my early thirties, but am very familiar with video games and Japanese animation, so I found the way they had adopted anime-like flourishes and techniques to be really quite charming. And incoherent? Not at all.

OMG this movie had corporate sponsers! Ahhhhhhhh! Jim prefers state funded movies like the Nazi's.

JE: You mean the Nazis funded movies in which the villains were the Nazis?

OMG this movie had corporate sponsers! Ahhhhhhhh! Jim prefers state funded movies like the Nazi's.

This is possibly the most psychadelic movie ever made. The cinematography completely evokes the feel of a cartoon, which is exactly what it set out to do. This is the most faithful film transaltion of a cartoon i've ever seen, even though the setting is more alternate universe than 1970's anime. The acting is campy at best but all the actors completely embody their characters and are exactly like you would expect those cartoon characters to look like in real life. And the effects are the most eye-popping thing since.....ever. Tron was cute but it isn't nearly as ambitious as speed racer. ask any animator which movie would have been easier to make, then or now, colorful and perpetually in focus versus black and mirky with some neon. Jim, watch this with an open mind, don't think about the marketing, the Wachowski's weren't thinking about that when they made it, you might actually enjoy the film if you weren't so quick to dismiss everything as a marketing ploy; it's a buisiness as well as an art form, get over it.

After seeing this movie, I don't what the claim of narrative incoherence or any incoherence actually meant. The film was easy to follow, none too complex and I did not feel a visual overload until the end of the last race, where it was seen fit to give me a silly transcendence consisting of red-and-white checkered tunnels. Psychedelic, man!

That said, the visual effects were grafted from anime, the boundless camera seen elsewhere in the work of David Fincher and the man who directed Oldboy, although not as extreme here; I'm pretty sure Casshern made as many "leaps" as Speed Racer did in its attempts to adapt anime to the screen. What was so ground-breaking visually about the movie? The scrolling faces that clog up the screen? The effects were amazing, but nothing not seen before in other mediums and movies. It's fun that they made it so stylish.

The movie also had the emotional content of the Karate Kid, The Rookie, or any other sports movie. How refreshing is a movie where the main character must discover the love of the game in order to win? "Believe in yourself," "Listen to your heart," etc. Call me cynical assassin of fun, but I enjoyed the neat effects and nothing more. I was expecting the song from Chariots of Fire to play while Speed was taking his final blast through the track. The movie succeeds in being good fun, but a masterpiece for all ages?

I haven't seen the movie yet, and probably won't until my kids are a little older, but someone who would pan the original TV series as heavily couldn't be expected to GET this movie either. As a five to eight year old boy the series was one of my favorites. At that age I don't recall having the sophistication to get so worked up about the quality of animation or comprehend that the translation was awkward. It was the action, excitement, and plot that energized the imagination of a young boy that mattered.

I defer to comments made by the esteemed comrade, Karl Marx (May 16)...HE'S THE ONLY ONE WHO KNOWS WHERE THIS MOVIE IS COMING FROM. How else do you take a real lousy 60's cartoon and turn into a big screen film. This movie could only have been done in the fashion the Wachowski's have done it. What brilliant imaginations. Think about the Disney® movie Cars. Pretty much the same thing; a kids movie, not to be over analyzed. Imagine how this movie would look and feel if done conventionally, with actors like Leonardo Di Capprio as Speed, Tom Cruise as Racer X and Anthony Hopkins as Mr. Royalton. It wouldn't be loyal to the cartoon or to the audience. I predict this movie will from a cult following.

After reading all the negative reviews, this movie was much, much better than I expected.

Your review of Speed Racer is unnecessarily harsh. The claim that the movie has no continuity is completely unfounded. I went with a group of pre-teens and children to see the movie on opening day and everyone seemed to thoroughly understand and enjoy the movie. I have absolutely no idea where your coming from. To single this film out as playing into corporate gains also feels somewhat biased considering Iron Man, Indy 4, and Prince Caspian have all got action figures, Kids Meal toys and video games to accompany their release as has EVERY summer spectacle movie since as long as I can remember. At least this movie has a fun sense of spirit and adventure. I honestly think this is the best family film of the decade so far and its release has been severely crippled probably due to reviewers like yourself who didn't like the preview so when it came time to actually view the movie, you watched it with a thumb planted firmly up your butt.

Have to agree with Dennis Cozzalio:"It's the movie of the year for me so far." I found that it is far better than Star Wars 1,2,3 & 6. and like Dennis says: "The CGI technology which by now has become so mundane and deadly in other filmmaking contexts is invigorated, made as masterful as Speed Racer himself hurling down the track, spinning and doing gravity-defying loops. . . . 'It’s inspiring and beautiful, everything art should be.'" I am grateful for this film.

YES, I too add my thanks to previous poster EVAN DERRICK (and others) for saying what I feel and think, but could never say like him!

I respect all of your comments--positive or negative, but...having just seen this film finally at my local $1 Cinema (all I can afford), although it's a kid's movie (and I'm in my 50's!), I absolutely LOVED it!!! and thought it was PERFECT for its genre! And want to see it again just for the joy!

But more than that, it really got to me, hit my heart--I guess that "good 'n evil" thing like a morality play of yore.

So, Mr. Emerson, though I did think the "optical design", you mentioned, should wow the Oscars, it in fact was for me MORE than that. Indeed it WAS the ".....dialogue, narrative, performance [and] characterization", the elements you dismissed as lacking merit, which moved me. So, that you thought "you could look at it with the sound off and it wouldn't matter" cut into me, and into the child-like part of my movie-loving heart. (And I say this even as one who PREFERS the finery of grown-up dramatic films.) It made me think "Can't you see?"

Yet I realize that's the pain, frustration, and...beauty of a critic's corner, where we're free to express our opinions (not unlike of the democratic country we live in, so far, anyway!)

And permit me a note in closing of tribute to actress Susan Sarandon (or any actor for that matter.) What actor would "purposely", as one poster wrote, convey her role as "irritating", when it was not meant to be? In fairness, her character may have been irritating to you, but to say that she intentionally did so undermines, in my opinion, the meaning of her role as the Mom in the context of the story. (Sure wouldn't mind her as MY Mom!)

That said, now I'll go have my milk and cookies.

Thanks to you all.

God forbid -- it wasn't full of gore, violence, foul language, sex, more sex and even more sex, drugs and political correctness.

It's a movie. It's all about fun. It was to entertain. It did just that. Does everything have to have an extensive plot and origins in Shakespeare, or writings of the greats, etc.?

Get over yourselves and try relaxing a little in life and having some fun for a change.

What's wrong with colors and fun? Hard to believe in a society which harbors "fame" in the likes of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears or what color baby Brad and Angelina or Madonna adopted, that this movie would be panned by anyone.

I loved the movie, go figure.

That impossibly blue sky is such a treat. So much of the film is surreal and sweet like "Boum" in Toto Le Hero.

I also found myself pulled in by the integrity of the actors working in such a stylized and simple world. Worked for me, anyhow.

Long on style, short on content, fine...but kudos to the Wachowski brothers. It resonates with a lot of work by the Coen Brothers and Quentin Tarantino, and is deserving of another look.

I don't agree with the review and I don't even find it entertaining nor clever. I don't believe in using the term guilty pleasure. If I like a film, it may offer me many things that only cinema can offer. Things that critics who need to zealously guard their posturing intellect just don't want to see. Speed Racer is a great graphic experience and it frames a sweet cartoon story about racing and a bunch of other entertaining stuff. It's a dazzling version of the sweet simple anime cartoon import; and a lot of fun for anybody, unless your intellect has become cancerous.

since when is being able to relate one thing to another a signifier of that thing being bad? this 'review' is more of a cause for disdain via association of somewhat obscure references than a substantial vivisection of a film. it is pandering garbage that people who say describe things as 'snarky' in a favorable light will laud.

speed racer was an ambitious, high quality, well directed, thoughtful and subtly relevant film with great casting. the action was cartoonish, the visuals were tasteful and interesting, speed's lines were delivered with thoughtful, detached conviction that loaned his character the appearance of being neutral and, here's where i use a word like 'gasp' to convey a sense of sarcastic surprise, likable for his convictions and determination.

nothing in this movie is wasted. there are tributes to the cartoon, displays of speed's prowess as a racer, and testaments of each important character that lend to the establishing emotional ties to the characters based on subtle, culturally relevant issues people over 35 may not understand because they're too busy making references to 30 year old bands to see.

what do pink floyd laser light shows have to do with anything? my god, the sun has spewed photons in the humanly visible spectrum for billions of years, so obviously everything that depends on light as a medium for expression is blase or some other french sounding word that sounds smugly condescending enough for pretentious fans of 'snarkiness' to latch onto as contributory to their overinflated egos.

but i will make a point about pink floyd in relation to speed racer: roger waters was highly agitated by corporatism, and the albums 'animals' and 'the wall' may actually bear more resemblance to speed racer than an offhand, thoughtless comment about laser light shows. the difference between speed racer and pink floyd? audience. the film makers had their audience in mind when they created this film. they didn't spend three excessively long movies (matrix trilogy?) beating a simplistic refresher course in basic western philosophy into our heads. they established villains, gave us some familiar issues to care about (the racing is unimportant, as the film tells us more than once) such as corporatism and intellectual property, and characters to embody a clash between ideals.

so, anyway:

step 1: use vague references to easy targets for pretentious derision in a faux review of a good movie
step 2: allow egotistical retards to applaud their recognition of whatever it is that complements their grossly overestimated sense of self
step 3: ...
step 4: profit

is there a mad-lib book for writing these reviews?

Why is it that so many critics gave this movie a terrible review? This one of most caring, thoughtful, interesting movies I've ever seen and I am so glad that so many of you had the guts to get up and say just how much you liked it. I am 17 1/2 and I personally loved this movie, not just with a kid sense, but also a movie sense (because most teenagers would just pass this off as some c-grade movie. I have always respected Roger Ebert and he is my favorite film critic, but I think he totally misses the mark here. This movie was not about lights, it was not about stunts and action sequences, it was about how we all really do need are families (this coming from a guy who has ten brothers and sisters) and if we do the right thing we can give the bad people just what they deserve.

Through the entire movie Speed and his family are not a bunch of meaningless one dimensional characters, they all have important roles and work with each other very well, I never once felt that any of the characters were just taking up space like so many critics did.

Anyone who listened to the negatives reviews that this movie got when it was in the theaters really missed out a great time at the movies, I didn't have a chance to see it in the theaters because no one wanted to see it with me and I don't have my license yet. Boy do I sure hate them that, I would have loved to have seen it on the big screen, because I think this truly is an Oscar worthy movie and at the very least agreeing some of the various people who liked it, is worth a second look.

i've got to admit i'm disappointed i let this review delay my viewing of speed racer. i picked it up on a whim to put on as tertiary entertainment while i did some work at home, and was thoroughly surprised to find myself hooked to the screen for the duration of the film. i was moved, i laughed, i smiled, the story was a little confusing, yes, but i'm eager to go back and read the manga. as far as entertainment goes, this is good stuff. i have never disagreed with a mass of critics more. here's hoping speed racer picks up a cult following.

Who was the character of Gennie? She was played by Cosma Shiva Hagen (whose mother Nina has made some great albums) but I don't remember this character at all. Thanks!